The social footprint—a practical approach to comprehensive and consistent social LCA

SOCIAL LCA IN PROGRESS

Abstract

Purpose

The practicality of social footprinting is currently hampered by an excessive data requirement, a lack of focus on materiality of the impacts, and a lack of understanding of the main impact pathways (cause-effect relationships) for social and economic impacts. We propose a “streamlined” method to overcome these barriers without loss of comprehensiveness.

Methods

The method combines a top-down approach using input-output data to focus the data collection effort on processes with high value added or a high number of work hours with a streamlined impact assessment that limits the inventory data requirement and the need for detailed impact pathway descriptions, by focusing on the macro-scale impacts of income redistribution and productivity impacts of missing governance, both of which can be classified as nonproduction-specific impacts, i.e., unrelated to enterprise-specific actions and choice of technology, and therefore quantifiable from national statistics without need to access detailed technology- or enterprise-specific data. The method is open for further refinement and detail in areas of specific interest for a particular product or project.

Results and discussion

We show that nonproduction-specific impacts constitute the vast majority of social and economic impacts and how important income inequality is for the impact assessment. We apply a novel way of combining impacts on productivity and impacts on human well-being and show that inequality implies that an intervention that changes the amount of QALY (quality-adjusted life years) for a population group will always give a larger change in well-being than an intervention of the same monetary value that only affects the level of consumption of the same population group. Throughout the article, we apply and illustrate the method with an example from the clothing industry.

Conclusions

The presented method allows comprehensive assessments of social footprints of products at much lower efforts than seen so far. The potential credits for positive action is by far the largest in countries with missing governance, thus providing a compelling argument for placing activities in countries with missing governance, provided that it allows the enterprise to follow an active strategy to create shared value.

Keywords

Governance Income inequality Income redistribution Input-output data Non-production-specific impacts Productivity Quality-adjusted time Shared value 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Miguel Brandão for constructive sparring during the development of the arguments presented in this article and for nudging us to submit it to this special issue. The ideas were originally presented orally to the 2015 SETAC-Europe Annual meeting in Barcelona (Weidema 2015). We are also grateful for detailed and helpful comments from three anonymous reviewers of the originally submitted manuscript.

References

  1. Ahmad N, Koh S-H (2011) Incorporating estimates of household production of non-market services into international comparisons of material well-being. STD/2011/07. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. D’Ambrogio E (2014) Workers’ conditions in the textile and clothing sector: just an Asian affair? European Parliament Briefing. Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service. www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2014/538222/EPRS_BRI(2014)538222_REV1_EN.pdf (Accessed 2015–07-30)
  3. Andrews ES, Barthel LP, Beck T, Benoît C, Ciroth A, Cucuzzella C, Gensch CO, Methot AL, Moberg A, Hébert J, Lesage P, Manhart A, Mazeau P, Mazjin B, Norris G, Parent J, Prakash S, Reveret JP, Spillemaeckers S, Ugaya S, Maria L, Valdivia S, Weidema BP (2009) Guidelines for social Life Cycle Assessment of Products - UNEP SETAC life cycle initiativeGoogle Scholar
  4. Barro R J, Lee J-W (2010) A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in the World, 1950–2010. NBER Working Paper No. 15902Google Scholar
  5. Benoit-Norris C, Cavan DA, Norris G (2012) Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability 4(9):1946–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bocoum I, Macombe C, Revéret J-P (2015) Anticipating impacts on health based on changes in income inequality caused by life cycles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:405–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown G (2012) Child labour & educational disadvantage – breaking the link, building opportunity. The Office of the UN Special Envoy for Global Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook - consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. GreenDeltaTC, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. Falque A, Feschet P, Garrabé M, Gillet C, Lagarde V, Loeillet D, Macombe C (2014) Social LCAs. Socio-economic effects in value chains. Montpellier: Fruitrop Thema, CIRAID. Copyright CIRAID 2013. English edition published 2014Google Scholar
  10. Feschet P, Macombe C, Garrabé M, Loeillet D, Saez A, Benhmad F (2013) Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:490–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grießhammer R, Buchert M, Gensch C-O, Hochfeld C, Manhart A, Reisch L, Rüdenauer I (2007) Prosa – Product Sustainability Assessment Guideline. (PROSA 2.0). Freiburg: öko-Institut e.v. – Institute for Applied EcologyGoogle Scholar
  12. Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild MZ (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jørgensen A, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen MS, Hauschild MZ (2010a) ) Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(4):376–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jørgensen A, Lai L, Hauschild M (2010b) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kabeer N, Mahmud S (2004) Rags, riches and women workers: export-oriented garment manufacturing in Bangladesh. In: Carr M (ed) Chains of fortune: linking women producers and workers with global markets. Commonwealth Secretariat, London, pp. 133–164Google Scholar
  16. Kane G (2015) India Country Report. An Overview of the Garment Industry. Amsterdam: Clean Clothes Campaign. www.cleanclothes.org/resources/publications/factsheets/
  17. Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lambert, PJ (2001) The distribution and redistribution of income. Manchester University PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Layard R, Nickell S, Mayraz G (2008) The marginal utility of income. J Public Econ 92:1846–1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Macombe C, Leskinen P, Feschet P, Antikainen R (2013) Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs. J Clean Prod 52:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moavenzadeh J, Doherty S, Philip R, Geiger T, Gottfredson M, Mattios G, Willink BT, Correa A, Hoekman B, Jackson S, Ferrantino M, Tsigas M (2013) Enabling trade. Valuing growth opportunities. World Economic Forum, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  22. Psacharopoulos G (1994) Returns to investment in education: a global update. World Dev 22(9):1325–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reitinger C, Dumke M, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand R (2011) A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tukker A, de Koning A, Wood R, Hawkins T, Lutter S, Acosta J, Rueda Cantuche JM, Bouwmeester M, Oosterhaven J, Drosdowski T, Kuenen J (2013) EXIOPOL – development and illustrative analyses of a detailed global MR EE SUT/IOT. Econ Syst Res 25(1):50–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weidema BP (2006a) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weidema, BP (2006b) Social impact categories, indicators, characterisation, and damage modelling. Presentation for the 29th Swiss LCA Discussion Forum 2006.07.15Google Scholar
  27. Weidema BP (2009) Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecol Econ 68(6):1591–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weidema, BP (2015) The social footprint – A practical approach to comprehensive and consistent social LCA. Presentation to the SETAC 25th Annual meeting, Barcelona, 2015.05.3–7Google Scholar
  29. Worldbank (2015) Data. GDP (current LCU). GDP per capita (current US$). Labour force, total. Population, total. Population, ages 0–14 (% of total). Unemployment, total (% of total labor force). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CN/, NY.GDP.PCAP.CD/, SL.TLF.TOTL.IN/, SP.POP.TOTL/, SP.POP.0014.TO.ZS/, and SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS/ (accessed 2015–07-29)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Danish Centre for Environmental AssessmentAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations